P L MANI Vs. M M THENAPPA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the revision petitioner. He filed a petition for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction and wilful default.

(2.) BOTH the courts below have dismissed the petition holding that there is no bona fide in respect of the request of demolition and reconstruction and also that there is no wilful default. Further the courts below held that the tenant has put up the structure and that consequently the Rent Control Court will have no jurisdiction. Hence, this revision.

(3.) IT is no doubt true that the landlord in his petition came forward with the case that it was he who demolished the premises and put up the structure and allowed the tenant to occupy. This contention was not believed by the courts below on the evidence adduced by the landlord and the tenant. Probably the landlord is developing a case in the petition. While in fact the intention of both the landlord and the tenant at the time of leasing the property was that the tenant must demolish the building and put up building at his cost for the convenience and proper enjoyment of the property to serve the purpose of tenancy. In this case, the premises has been taken for the purpose of running a nursery school. Therefore for the purpose of running a school it had become necessary for the tenant to demolish the structure standing on the land and put up his own structure like thatched shed, small rooms and koodams for the purpose of running a school. The finding of the lower court is that such new constructions have come on the land only at the cost and efforts of the tenant. Therefore it is not fair for the landlord to try to evict the tenant under the provisions of the Rent Control Act when admittedly the building (within the meaning of the Act) has been put up by the tenant.